What about the British nationalism used by the No campaign?
English nationalism is always pretty unpleasant.
Not sure that's true - while the EDL are definitely unpleasant, there are also plenty of supporters of English sport that are fine.
My huge Yes campaign supporting colleague
Too many deep fried mars bars? 🙂
Im so annoying [s]when I'm right[/s]
FTFY 😉
Get over your victim complex.
No victim complex here, I do alright out of the 'system', and I'm probably better off as a result of the no vote. I'm talking more about the fact that the opportunity for achieving real fundamental change through peaceful democratic means is very rare. And when it comes about, as in this case, it is spurned. This is the real victory of the neo-liberals. They have constructed a world where people willingly abdicate responsibility for their own lives in return for something much less that could otherwise be achieved. It's quite depressing really.
EDIT: And I forgot to mention Spanish nationalism.
Which bit of it? The Basques? The Catalans? The central one state Spanish?
Actually, thinking about it you could well be right 🙂
IMO there's a hint of 1992 about the polling responses
I did mention that somewhere in the long thread. Speaking of which, I think this is the first time I've seen you on one of these threads...
the opportunity for achieving real fundamental change through peaceful democratic means is very rare.
That opportunity is still here. It's just that now it's all of us together, instead of just Scots.
They have constructed a world where people willingly abdicate responsibility for their own lives in return for something much less that could otherwise be achieved.
This is a phenomenon that has been well known for millennia - it's not a neoliberal thing. Generally, when people have food in their bellies and jobs, they are less fussed about who's in power.
They have constructed a world where people willingly abdicate responsibility for their own lives in return for something much less that could otherwise be achieved. It's quite depressing really.
A bit OTT, I suspect most of the No voters just thought 'why take the risk, I'm happy enough as things are'. Scotland is hardly oppressed in any meaningful way.
Anyone have a synopsis of what was promised in terms of powers? Did they say anything remotely specific?
Oh and it's Scotsman.. Not Scotchman. You may think it makes to look amusing and controversial, in actual fact it makes to look like a complete bellend!
Nope, sorry. I won't be browbeaten into changing my amusing ways by a small man in a skirt.
Anyone have a synopsis of what was promised in terms of powers?
It's a consolation prize anyway. A bit like 'look what you could have won' in Bullseye.
Molls - despite what they may think, the crowd at Twickenham isn't really a political movement 😉
That opportunity is still here. It's just that now it's all of us together, instead of just Scots.
And you think that will happen? They're already turning it into an 'English' issue, and an opportunity to finally stuff the labour party electorally. There's going to be much less opportunity than before for changing anything after this.
This is a phenomenon that has been well known for millennia - it's not a neoliberal thing.
Maybe, but the modern form of this is more extreme and counter-beneficial to the wider populace than ever before. It's not just political influence people are now willing to sacrifice, but they're also willing to accept falling wages, poorer pensions, poorer public services, poorer working rights etc through fear of being even more worse off.
but they're also willing to accept falling wages, poorer pensions, poorer public services, poorer working rights etc through fear of being even more worse off.
Allegedly; there is / was no guarantee that a separate Scotland would be better off and uncertainty about that issue was probably why Yes didn't win.
they're also willing to accept falling wages, poorer pensions, poorer public services, poorer working rights etc
But they didn't, they voted No.
No victim complex here, I do alright out of the 'system', and I'm probably better off as a result of the no vote. I'm talking more about the fact that the opportunity for achieving real fundamental change through peaceful democratic means is very rare. And when it comes about, as in this case, it is spurned. This is the real victory of the neo-liberals. They have constructed a world where people willingly abdicate responsibility for their own lives in return for something much less that could otherwise be achieved. It's quite depressing really.
I can sympathise and identify with these thoughts, but I also hope some of the "no" voters identify themselves as British and hope to achieve real change for their whole country.
The last thing the Yes side wanted to do was get into a discussion about practicalities.
Actually I think it's the last thing the "no" side wanted, at a strategic level. To start planning for a "yes" result would have added traction and legitimacy to the "yes" campaign.
That would have been my take on it anyway.
For most people the political system is actually largely irrelevant to their quality of life.
Tell that to the victims of the current govt's austerity drive.
I think we need to find out why people voted No
You make it sound like a witch hunt - repeatedly asking the same question until you get the answer you want (in a potentially agressive manner) isn't really democracy, thats bullying. The majority choose No, gracously accept it otherwise you're going to sound like a TJ thread - "no, no, no, you're all wrong and I'm right"
Baltic States nationalism in the late 80s?
Those sort of comparisons are just mental and ignorant. I have friend's and family in those countries, quite a sobering experience to ask for their experiences in the 1980s.
But they didn't, they voted No.
Like these things haven't been happening for the past 30 years? Like I said it's a great trick. Convince the people that they'll be better off under the status quo, even though their living standards and freedoms have been eroded under that system for the past 30 years.
Molls - despite what they may think, the crowd at Twickenham isn't really a political movement
I didn't say that, that was someone else.
And you think that will happen?
Yeah, I'm hopeful. The shouting will arrive when they start deciding exactly what. But you'd hope that the SNP already have a specific shopping list.
It's not just political influence people are now willing to sacrifice, but they're also willing to accept falling wages, poorer pensions, poorer public services, poorer working rights etc through fear of being even more worse off.
Wait and see. I doubt Tories would have won th enext election, so that would be the only statement people could really make. You may feel pretty smug about the referendum turnout and campaigning but you were offered this, you didn't make it. To accuse the rest of the UK of acquiescence because they didn't ahve such a campaign is a bit below the belt.
However like I said, we'll have to see what happens from now on. Things will be different.
At the end of the day, Alex Salmond must be laughing his tits off. I personally think he's pulled off the biggest coup in British electoral history.
I don't think he ever wanted full independence. Not for a minute. He wanted Devo Max right from the off. Best of both worlds. Risk free power.
But look what he's done. Look how he's managed it! He asked for the Devo Max option to be included on the ballot paper. The response from Westminster was a dismissive 'you can **** right off mate! You've no chance!! Thats having your cake and eating it!!! Most definitely NOT on the agenda. Jog on!!"
Fast forward 2 years and he's got the leaders of all 3 parties scurrying up from Westminster to offer him exactly that, delivered up to him on a big silver platter!
He's played an absolute blinder! And if it all pans out, it could work out very nicely for everyone. The head of the Welsh assembly has just been on the radio saying theres no chance Wales will accept anything less than what Scotland is getting. I expect everyone else will be lining up to say the same.
I wonder how many of the Westminster lot are waking up to the fact that they're not half as clever as they think they are, and they've just been played, big time, by a master of the game? 😆
Oh... sorry Molls 😳
No, the real trick is promising that they'll be better off under some new system, which is actually just the same but with less money to go round.
Convince the people that they'll be better off under the status quo, even though their living standards and freedoms have been eroded under that system for the past 30 years.
Given the Yes campaign wanted to change the status quo, surely the onus was on them to convince people they could make them better off etc. Something they were very light on in detail (partly because it's very hard to even know if they could, let alone prove it).
Just a quick question. How long before this all start up again?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-english-question-ed-miliband-scotland
I'm not sure making the Chancellorship unavailable to Scottish MPs is a good idea? It seems to me that we need an upper house who can be elected by everyone in Britain and a lower house with devolved powers for England.
This seems like a monumentally bad idea and a move towards cementing Tory hold and to reduce the Scottish voice when it comes to nationwide matters. I don't for a second believe that there will be a black and white line drawn out that will govern what Scottish MP's can vote for, this will be a source of legal wrangling for decades unless we separate the houses and give them clear mandates.
even though their living standards and freedoms have been eroded under that system for the past 30 years.
I think that statement may well be rubbish.
Living standards are certainly higher than they were 30 years ago. And "freedoms" is pretty hard to pin down. Some things are better, some are worse.
Shock news,citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain wished to stay citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
surely the onus was on them to convince people they could make them better off etc
But it wasn't an election where these sort of promises are made. It was a referendum on whether they wanted to take more control over the issues that could potentially bring them about. I don't think many yes voters thought they'd be better off afterwards, in fact I reckon they probably accepted they'd be worse off in the short term, but that it would be a price worth paying to gain the immediate benefits on offer and the increased opportunity of being better off in the longer term.
but that it would be a price worth paying
or not in the majority of cases.
So not everyone shared your optimism. No big deal, you've got Devo-Max to look forward too.
theres no chance Wales will accept anything less than what Scotland is getting.
Good! I hope that goes for the regions too.
I wonder how many of the Westminster lot are waking up to the fact that they're not half as clever as they think they are, and they've just been played, big time, by a master of the game?
I much prefer this interpretation of events binners 🙂
At the end of the day, Alex Salmond must be laughing his tits off. I personally think he's pulled off the biggest coup in British electoral history.
Here he is laughing his tits off
[img] 
[/img]
What I want to know is - where the hell is Ernie? 🙁
aracer - thats just 😥 for the cameras. When he got in his house its pumping disco, champagne and nosebag and bouncing up and down on the sofa, naked
Meanwhile, here's a rally for democracy and freedom in London
[img] 
[/img]
When he got in his house its pumping disco, champagne and nosebag and bouncing up and down on the sofa, naked
It's nearly time for lunch. Thanks for that image.
Taken from another area of the internet:
A vision of the re-validated United Kingdom:
Firstly Scotland, the new powers promised (yet to be confirmed what exactly they are, or could be possibly), after much wrangling and watering down due to the Westminster back benchers refusing to tow the (official) party line, are granted. Crucially these include tax raising powers,ability to borrow funds against assets, and the ability to ring fence healthcare spending and hence prevent ( or seemingly prevent) the stealth privatisation of these services happening elsewhere in the UK. One power that will not be on the table is to have any increased representation regarding negotiations with the EU on common policy's.Bear in mind that privatisation of nationalised industries/services is not a UK government policy as such, but a direct result of the conditions designed to create a free marketplace imposed by the IMF et al when lending money to bail out the UK from the late 70's onwards. Now this is a very important point as we will see.
Returning to the powers granted to Scotland, in return for these powers ( which will come with the caveat, as is now, that the Westminster government can over rule the Scottish parliament at any time it chooses if the policy in question does not suit it's own agenda),the current Barnett formula will be abolished. Again this is a very important point for the rest of the UK, but not for the reasons you may think, we will come back to this later.
There will be, for a time, a block grant allocated for funding in Scotland until such time that all the mechanisms for the collection and distribution of taxes are in place, then this will be ended.
Now the Oil question, regardless of what the Yes campaign told us about oil revenues in an independent Scotland, the truth is that it was the cornerstone of their funding plans in the short to medium term. Without the oil revenues an independent Scotland could never have managed to convince any lender to fund the start up costs of a new country with no assets. An asset is in the eyes of a lender a tangible thing, that if worst comes to worst can be appropriated in order to cover the debt owed, the intellectual ideals, or the amount of wind and waves around a country is not a sufficiently tangible asset for a lender to take a chance on!
These oil revenues and reserves will be classed, as they are now, a UK asset, and will continue to be used as a financial lever for borrowing and taxation will continue to go to the UK government to be distributed as they see fit.
Back to taxation powers, from the taxes raised by the Scottish parliament, an expectation will be made by the UK government that from those tax revenues, payments will continue to be made against our shared outgoings/ debt repayments i.e. military, defence/ offence capabilities ( 2 totally separate things),etc based on percentage of population of the UK as a whole. If the UK borrowing continues to increase despite austerity measures, as many experts predict it will, then Scotland's expenditure on its share of the debt repayments will increase also. Now this becomes a catch 22 situation for Scotland. In order to provide income to service it's debts and social responsibilities, the money has to come from somewhere. Three options present themselves, increased taxation in whatever form, go cap in hand to various financial institutions for funding, or request that the UK government and the Bank of England intervene with bail out finance.
Increasing taxation overtly is never a popular choice with politicians, so to begin with there would most likely be an increase in stealth taxes along with cuts in public services, as is currently the case. This will only slow down the rate of decline for a while and then the choice of 3 will return. The most likely choice will depend on the make up of the Scottish government at this time, a predominantly nationalist government will likely approach alternative lenders for funding due to sheer resentment at their treatment during the 2014 referendum (and would likely have little other choice than to do so, although with no tangible assets to use as a lever, not sure who would be willing to lend), a more UK leaning government would approach their natural bedfellows and go to the UK government for a bail out. Either way the end result would be the same, as any lending from either source would result in the same conditions being imposed re privatisation of public services etc and an inevitable rise in taxation to cover the costs of increased borrowing,and so the cycle continues. Of course, if Scotland had voted for independence and had control over the oil revenues,it would be in the same situation re privatisation of public services etc as it would have still had to have borrowed in order to set up the required infrastructure to run a successful independent country, but at least the revenues MAY have been enough to pay of this debt within a reasonable timeframe IF managed correctly, and at this point possibly started to enjoy a relatively decent level of prosperity.
Now for the UK.
Firstly the Barnett formula. Contrary to what people think, this formula does not apply only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK, it was designed in an attempt to equalise the distribution of public spending by giving a higher proportion of funding to areas that were deemed to be "poorer" as an average at the expense of the "richer" areas to give all areas a more level playing field,(very much a simplification). What this means is that places like the North East of England received a higher level of public funding than the relatively more prosperous South East of England as did Scotland. With the abolition in Scotland of the Barnett formula, it would be inconceivable that this formula as is could remain in place for the rest of the UK, as Scotland,although with 'devo max', is still part of the UK,and rules must be applied evenly across the board.
The Barnett formula could conceivably be replaced with another method of funding distribution within the rest of the UK, but if so would probably not be as generous to some areas in these times of austerity as previous. This would again lead to further cuts in public expenditure in these affected areas with the inevitable loss of vital public services and associated private supply business and hence jobs. These areas are then into the cycle of having to increase public spending on the benefit system, but with less funding to do so. Without the powers to increase income taxation directly, these areas will have to resort to yet more stealth taxation on the populous, for example increasing the council tax on private property,increasing tax in business property etc.
This then becomes a problem for the UK government,reduced level of tax revenues but an unwillingness to borrow more money to keep the country afloat. There is no gold reserves left to sell as a short term fix,if corporation tax is raised it will deter investment and possibly force companies that can to relocate to more 'suitable' territories, what to do? Raise individual tax rates will be the answer to that, raid the pension pot again a la Gordon Brown and hope that gets the UK by for a while.
Eventually at sometime in the future there will be 2 options available, to start printing money again in the hope that it does not cause hyperinflation and basically devalue the currency, which it will. The crash and burn of Greece's economy will be nothing compared to the UK in this scenario.
The other option is that the EU will come to the rescue with a bail out at this point, but there will be serious concessions to be made for this due to the fact of the 2017? Referendum on EU membership will have been held by then. This will be a vote to stay within the EU, but again by a narrow margin, and the EU commission will be in no mood to play nice with a country that only just wants to stay within its organisation. One of the condition of this bail out, where it to happen, will be to join the common currency with all the loss of control over interest rates, taxation etc that that entails.
Meanwhile in the UK, the rise of the politically far right leaning parties in (coalition?) power will lead to a corresponding rise in radicalisation and separatism of disaffected 'minorities' with the inevitable results but at least the security services and police will be busy.
Anyway, many other things that I have left out in my rant, I'm sure people will point out where I'm wrong, but hey nobody can predict the future and I sure hope it does not turn out as grim as I write here.
Have a nice day
precis?
That's a lot of words. Is there a summary?
In summary, it would appear we're all doomed 🙂
When he got in his house its pumping disco
At the end of the day, Alex Salmond must be laughing his tits off. I personally think he's pulled off the biggest coup in British electoral history.
Nah
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the political genius of Ed Miliband and the labour party. We've now had CMD preening on the steps of Downing St like the cat who got the cream, and already talking about an English parliament which will completely shaft the labour party electorally in England, all a result of a campaign that the labour party largely fought for him. Nicely done!
Yeah but gonna be tricky to get Labour to agree to anything because of that.
..and then they become the demons who deny the scots devo-max and are also shafted electorally in Scotland. Result!
From Ed's 'meeting' with the Scottish electorate. To prove that he could meet the real people. From the Guardian sketch....
[i]The exit to the mall loomed and Miliband still hadn't met a single Scottish voter. In desperation, he dived into one of the few remaining shops; a hairdresser's called SuperCuts. Of all the places and of all the times … Miliband's instinct for the own goal was as sure-footed as ever.
A brief conversation and then he was away. Away over the pedestrian walkway and into the car park, where his minders were waiting to take him home. À la Recherche du Miliband Perdu done and dusted in under five minutes.[/i]
Spot the difference....
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Dwaine Dibbly?
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is the political genius of Ed Miliband and the labour party. We've now had CMD preening on the steps of Downing St like the cat who got the cream, and already talking about an English parliament which will completely shaft the labour party electorally in England, all a result of a campaign that the labour party largely fought for him. Nicely done!
From the Osborne currency thread
Cameron, with a lot of help from Gordon Brown, has set Labour a really nasty conundrum. Support constitutional change. and face the prospect of being unable to govern England; or oppose it, and fight a rainbow coalition of all the other parties who want it.
@nstpaul - Clarity, Brevity, Impact.
A touch ironic me posting such a thing but you cut/paste is far too long.
